Hi, I’ve found that the rule HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT didn’t seem to pick up a few errors with the word “had” followed by a verb present tense. Hence, I’ve derived the following rule.
<rule id="HAD-VBP" name="Had + verb present tense"> <pattern> <token>had</token> <marker> <token postag='VBP'> <exception postag='JJ|JJR|JJS|VBN' postag_regexp='yes'> </exception><exception>become</exception> </token> </marker> </pattern> <message> Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: <suggestion><match no="2" postag="VBN"/></suggestion>. </message> <example type="incorrect">They had <marker>play</marker> the game</example> <example type="correct">They had <marker>played</marker> the game</example> </rule>
It’s the only rule which spots the errors in these sentences
“They had shoot the chicken” or
“They had play the game”.
However, for something like “They had modify the text.”, this is flagged by this rule as well as HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT rule.